So, what is your solution.. Let me guess, slavery? It is too easy to claim that the minimum wage is "too high" when it is not you who are getting the minimum wage.
It looks too much like "Hey, look!! The evil child-eating communists are deploying bigger doomsday weapons!!! We must spend another trillion dollars in weapons NOW!!!" (many time later someone points that the document about the russian weapon is fake or just speculation, but it does not matter anymore because money has already created new millionaires)
Funny, you do not think the problem may be actually in fact Chromecast clogging the router with requests when he should not be doing this? I've been seeing similar behavior in Google Chrome, it insists on creating an avalanche of UDP connections to mDNS that easily knocks down any home router not expecting such abuse.
Well, the problem is that you understood Windows but what I really wanted to say was desktop. The "idea" of desktop, not this or that operating system that have a desktop.
Having said that, I admit that in the desktop part Windows have been enough for me. But, why I can not have a good desktop on Linux as well? For your total and complete horror hehe, why I can not I have the best of worlds such as a Linux kernel with the Windows desktop? For a while I got a reasonable approximation using KDE in Slackware but then something always insists on crashing because of the way you have to install applications on Linux (they are too dependent on system changes that you can not always do without consequences), so the "next best thing" so far is Windows, but I'm perfectly aware of his weaknesses (especially now with Windows 10 and his team of monkeys taking care of the GUI) and I'd like to have options.
You're still assuming too much about someone you never saw in life before.
I think you may have comprehension problems (or I'm really really mutilating English), because at this point it must have become clear that I know what I am doing although you insist on believing otherwise... I know perfectly well about system libraries, headers, symbolic links and hardlinks, shell scripts, "everthing is a file", etc. and so on. The slight problem is when you want to install application "A" and it requires library "B" which in turn conflicts with application "C" or the library "D" (and the conflict with the library "D" is somewhat creepy), you sometimes can resolve these conflicts with some clever adjustments but this is not always possible even for someone with great technical knowledge.
Think about it. Again, I know what I am doing on Linux (again, even though you insist on believing otherwise), but the difference between us is that I do not think a desktop should give so much work to be able to be used (and maintained, I also had this problem after finally solving all the quirks when I'm messing around in a new distro) and so I would not spend hours and hours trying to get it to work if I can just use something else that already works well enough out-of-the-box like Windows.
P.S: And you think I use distros like... Ubuntu? HAH! Ubuntu is a aberration, nor Windows nor Linux, a frankeinstein. When I use Linux it is usually Slackware where besides worrying about the "normal" problems (already cited above) I do not have to worry about idiot hacks like that systemMd.
I know very very well how to deal with source code, mind you. But if you are also a developer then you should know very, very well the trouble that is dealing in third party code, especially when the documentation is shoddy or nonexistent.
But this brings back to the root of the problem: I am a developer, but why all Linux users also must be a developer to be able to use? A desktop should be usable by anyone you know?
You are assuming too much too fast and without thinking before writing.
Let's give some practical examples, since you want so much, about some things that I decided to install from source:
Freetype: I wanted to install from the source in order to enable the use of subpixel hinting and other useful settings that are not enabled by default. Clean, clear documentation on what each option does, few dependencies and therefore easy to compile. Compiled and installed without problems.
Kernel: The first thing I set up in a new Linux installation. Tons of settings that you need to worry about but usually the documentation on them is reasonably good and you therefore do not have to "shoot in the dark" to learn about the important settings and avoid those that may cause problems.
Look, a new version of Gimp with those features I wanted to use! Oops, source only, maybe one day we'll provide the package for your distro. Ok, I have the means to install from the source so let's see... First attempt fails because of a library I've never seen before, but that's okay, I can find it somewhere on the internet. Second attempt fails because my XYZ system library is not the latest possible (later you find out that it is still in beta). Ok, let's try, dependency resolved. Third attempt fails because of a really weird error, you search on forums and only find a half dozen references and no response other than "look up Google" (funny, you arrived at that forum exactly for having searched on the Google).
Fourth attempt, it now works! Oh oh, but now my sound player crashed because the library (in beta) I installed before was used by the sound player and nowhere mentioned that.
I decide that it is better to wait for the GIMP packaged properly for my distro and then try to use the package manager to roll back the library (in beta) to the previous version (note that the beta library installation was done via package management, I will not mention for you the times when I installed every single dependency from the source code)
Okay, package manager says it can return my beta library to the stable version, but in the process it insists on trying to remove half of the desktop-related packages (eg GNOME/KDE/etc). WTF??
Oh, there was also the time when I decided to be aggressive and I installed an application and all the packages it needed (and the dependencies of those packages) from the source for being a more unusual application (I do not remember which one now, sorry) and therefore with fewer users and therefore less documentation. I was able to install of course, but after that my desktop was never the same again and I had to reinstall everything from scratch to go back to normal.
So, you're still thinking I'm just making it up?
And note that any grammar errors are not intentional, English is not my native language and is pretty difficult to translate from my language into English without losing some meaning.
No, I am a relatively old developer. The problem is, I do not like having to constantly mess around on my home desktop for it to keep working, as if it is an old car full of problems popping when you fix the older ones. This constant thinkering may be okay for a purposefully experimental desktop or a "hobby" desktop, but not for your main day to day desktop that you want to simply work properly.
This isn't a tech help/Linux help forum.
Google for the fucking answer. The problem you admitted to having sounds like a made up one. Millions of functioning Linux desktops say otherwise bunk.
You Are The Problem
Is because of assholes like YOU that linux does not advance. Now Fuckoff.
Ah, the other problem that I occasionally encounter with Linux... When I complain about Linux desktop problems (some that have not been solved for years), instead of trying to fix the problems, they moderate me as "troll" for telling a uncomfortable truth. When the users of my systems complain about something I go there and fix it, instead of ignoring what they say.
In a nutshell, my problems with the Linux desktop are:
- It is quite difficult to configure, especially if you have a slightly out of the ordinary configuration (And in some cases it may be virtually impossible, I've had more than one case where I've had to look at really obscure forums to solve a hardware problem and all I could find was users asking about the same thing);
- The user interfaces are very inconsistent, where usually every application behaves the way it wants instead of respecting the system behavior (copy/paste for example);
- The process of installing a recent version of an application usually involves updating important system libraries and this operation is not always safe or can be done in a safe way (usually the update ends up breaking the functionality of other applications that you never imagined could have relationship);
- Often a more significant system upgrade can leave the entire system inoperable and with no means to go back, so the only secure way to upgrade your system is to reinstall everything from the new version DVD;
- Have you ever had the need to customize a large application for your use and so you tried to install from the source code? It's a disaster.
20 years? I would say 5. Every year I try a new Linux desktop distro (or a new version) to see the state of things and if they finally learned how to make a desktop (the server works fine but I want a desktop okay?), and every year I end up giving up and staying with Windows 7 (Windows 10 is bizarrely following the same path of the linux desktop, so I I'll stick with the Windows 7 until further notice).
P.S: Sometimes I almost feel like I've been able to leave my Linux desktop as I would like (using KDE in Linux Mint for example), but then something always breaks down in a disastrous way because of some update or something that should be trivial like installing a new version of GIMP.
No no, the mechanical protection I have described is of another type. There are several examples I can give but let's get one of the simple ones: Imagine some system where if the valve A is open then the valve B needs to be closed and vice versa, the valves MUST not open at the same time. in a normal situation you have a PLC deciding when to open and close the valves, but the valves contain a mechanical limiter such that when valve A opens the mechanism locks and prevents opening of valve B (and vice versa), then even if the PLC orders the two valves to open only one will be able to open because of mechanical blocking (this also exists for electric keys)
Well... You and I would not put cheap servos and non-physical protections on an equipment that weighs several tons and costs easily over a million dollars, right? I know that many people do stupid things when designing safeguards on equipment but these are the incompetent engineers from my example
it was not a fantasy world. I worked in a power plant and in this plant you do things right as I described or really, really bad things happen. And to be honest if the situations you described could not be avoided with failsafes then it means that the engineer who designed that failsafes did not know what he was doing, which then falls in the case of the "incompetent engineer" I have described.
I have followed in person with great interest the operation of a power plant where PLCs are used to command heavy equipment. All the equipment had fail-safes in case the PLCs tried to send invalid or potentially destructive commands so the worst that a "Hollywood superhacker" could do would be to shut down the plant (without damage), and even that I believe would not work because the operators in place also had secondary independent controls in case the main (the PLCs) had problems.
I see you did not understand my point, right? It's okay, I understand that not everyone is aware of how heavy power equipment works in real life.
The idea is that in a system that has a minimum of good sense at the time of design, you have layers of protection of different kinds that prevent a potentially catastrophic command from being executed, and you also design knowing that your control system may have problems and may try to execute exactly these commands that can be catastrophic. Then you put protections on the system that do not depend on each other and that can not be affected all at the same time, in particular when you put an electronic control on something you also have to put mechanical limits on what the electronics can do if they lose control, so that if the electronic control fails (or is deliberately sabotaged) it can not damage the equipment.
Short version: Equipment which can "explode" because of ridiculous "superhackers" only happens in Hollywood or when you have a completely incompetent engineer, and I seriously doubt you're going to entrust a multi-thousand dollar rig to an incompetent engineer.
Yep, FUD. Any half-engineer puts electrical and mechanical limits to prevent multi-million dollar equipment to do things that they should not, even when the electronics (the computer) try to give orders to do so. This is the fault of those ridiculous hollywood movies that try to pass the retarded idea that a scriptkiddie with a computer can control anything.
The new guys (the new entrepreneurs) are too stupid to think about where consumers come from. They think that consumers emerge from the "vacuum" and that they are inexhaustible.
Windows 10 is a nice kernel but with an GUI made by preschool children on top of it... Maybe I change my mind and switch to it when the interface be made by real professionals, until then I'll continue with Windows 7.
My CPU is a I7 4930K and it have the PCID (so says the HWiNFO64 and AIDA). But I think I will pass this "fix" if in the background his truly goal is to force me to buy a new desktop and force the use of Windows 10.
The problem is that I doubt very much that the FBI/CIA/NSA will someday use this skill for any lawful reason, it is much, much more likely that it will use this ability to steal my industrial secrets (and sell them to some north-american firm) and spying on other nations.
Slashdot Mirror
Your plan has the little problem that no one in their right mind will buy a used card from a miner.
So, what is your solution.. Let me guess, slavery? It is too easy to claim that the minimum wage is "too high" when it is not you who are getting the minimum wage.
It looks too much like "Hey, look!! The evil child-eating communists are deploying bigger doomsday weapons!!! We must spend another trillion dollars in weapons NOW!!!" (many time later someone points that the document about the russian weapon is fake or just speculation, but it does not matter anymore because money has already created new millionaires)
Funny, you do not think the problem may be actually in fact Chromecast clogging the router with requests when he should not be doing this? I've been seeing similar behavior in Google Chrome, it insists on creating an avalanche of UDP connections to mDNS that easily knocks down any home router not expecting such abuse.
Well, the problem is that you understood Windows but what I really wanted to say was desktop . The "idea" of desktop, not this or that operating system that have a desktop.
Having said that, I admit that in the desktop part Windows have been enough for me. But, why I can not have a good desktop on Linux as well? For your total and complete horror hehe, why I can not I have the best of worlds such as a Linux kernel with the Windows desktop? For a while I got a reasonable approximation using KDE in Slackware but then something always insists on crashing because of the way you have to install applications on Linux (they are too dependent on system changes that you can not always do without consequences), so the "next best thing" so far is Windows, but I'm perfectly aware of his weaknesses (especially now with Windows 10 and his team of monkeys taking care of the GUI) and I'd like to have options.
You're still assuming too much about someone you never saw in life before.
I think you may have comprehension problems (or I'm really really mutilating English), because at this point it must have become clear that I know what I am doing although you insist on believing otherwise... I know perfectly well about system libraries, headers, symbolic links and hardlinks, shell scripts, "everthing is a file", etc. and so on. The slight problem is when you want to install application "A" and it requires library "B" which in turn conflicts with application "C" or the library "D" (and the conflict with the library "D" is somewhat creepy), you sometimes can resolve these conflicts with some clever adjustments but this is not always possible even for someone with great technical knowledge.
Think about it. Again, I know what I am doing on Linux (again, even though you insist on believing otherwise), but the difference between us is that I do not think a desktop should give so much work to be able to be used (and maintained, I also had this problem after finally solving all the quirks when I'm messing around in a new distro) and so I would not spend hours and hours trying to get it to work if I can just use something else that already works well enough out-of-the-box like Windows.
P.S: And you think I use distros like... Ubuntu? HAH! Ubuntu is a aberration, nor Windows nor Linux, a frankeinstein. When I use Linux it is usually Slackware where besides worrying about the "normal" problems (already cited above) I do not have to worry about idiot hacks like that systemMd.
I know very very well how to deal with source code, mind you. But if you are also a developer then you should know very, very well the trouble that is dealing in third party code, especially when the documentation is shoddy or nonexistent.
But this brings back to the root of the problem: I am a developer, but why all Linux users also must be a developer to be able to use? A desktop should be usable by anyone you know?
You are assuming too much too fast and without thinking before writing.
... First attempt fails because of a library I've never seen before, but that's okay, I can find it somewhere on the internet. Second attempt fails because my XYZ system library is not the latest possible (later you find out that it is still in beta). Ok, let's try, dependency resolved. Third attempt fails because of a really weird error, you search on forums and only find a half dozen references and no response other than "look up Google" (funny, you arrived at that forum exactly for having searched on the Google).
Let's give some practical examples, since you want so much, about some things that I decided to install from source:
Freetype: I wanted to install from the source in order to enable the use of subpixel hinting and other useful settings that are not enabled by default. Clean, clear documentation on what each option does, few dependencies and therefore easy to compile. Compiled and installed without problems.
Kernel: The first thing I set up in a new Linux installation. Tons of settings that you need to worry about but usually the documentation on them is reasonably good and you therefore do not have to "shoot in the dark" to learn about the important settings and avoid those that may cause problems.
Look, a new version of Gimp with those features I wanted to use! Oops, source only, maybe one day we'll provide the package for your distro. Ok, I have the means to install from the source so let's see
Fourth attempt, it now works! Oh oh, but now my sound player crashed because the library (in beta) I installed before was used by the sound player and nowhere mentioned that.
I decide that it is better to wait for the GIMP packaged properly for my distro and then try to use the package manager to roll back the library (in beta) to the previous version (note that the beta library installation was done via package management, I will not mention for you the times when I installed every single dependency from the source code)
Okay, package manager says it can return my beta library to the stable version, but in the process it insists on trying to remove half of the desktop-related packages (eg GNOME/KDE/etc). WTF??
Oh, there was also the time when I decided to be aggressive and I installed an application and all the packages it needed (and the dependencies of those packages) from the source for being a more unusual application (I do not remember which one now, sorry) and therefore with fewer users and therefore less documentation. I was able to install of course, but after that my desktop was never the same again and I had to reinstall everything from scratch to go back to normal.
So, you're still thinking I'm just making it up?
And note that any grammar errors are not intentional, English is not my native language and is pretty difficult to translate from my language into English without losing some meaning.
No, I am a relatively old developer. The problem is, I do not like having to constantly mess around on my home desktop for it to keep working, as if it is an old car full of problems popping when you fix the older ones. This constant thinkering may be okay for a purposefully experimental desktop or a "hobby" desktop, but not for your main day to day desktop that you want to simply work properly.
This isn't a tech help/Linux help forum. Google for the fucking answer. The problem you admitted to having sounds like a made up one. Millions of functioning Linux desktops say otherwise bunk.
You Are The Problem
Is because of assholes like YOU that linux does not advance. Now Fuckoff.
I detailed into another comment, you just not bothered to read before reply. Now go bother someone else.
Ah, the other problem that I occasionally encounter with Linux... When I complain about Linux desktop problems (some that have not been solved for years), instead of trying to fix the problems, they moderate me as "troll" for telling a uncomfortable truth. When the users of my systems complain about something I go there and fix it, instead of ignoring what they say.
In a nutshell, my problems with the Linux desktop are:
- It is quite difficult to configure, especially if you have a slightly out of the ordinary configuration (And in some cases it may be virtually impossible, I've had more than one case where I've had to look at really obscure forums to solve a hardware problem and all I could find was users asking about the same thing);
- The user interfaces are very inconsistent, where usually every application behaves the way it wants instead of respecting the system behavior (copy/paste for example);
- The process of installing a recent version of an application usually involves updating important system libraries and this operation is not always safe or can be done in a safe way (usually the update ends up breaking the functionality of other applications that you never imagined could have relationship);
- Often a more significant system upgrade can leave the entire system inoperable and with no means to go back, so the only secure way to upgrade your system is to reinstall everything from the new version DVD;
- Have you ever had the need to customize a large application for your use and so you tried to install from the source code? It's a disaster.
20 years? I would say 5. Every year I try a new Linux desktop distro (or a new version) to see the state of things and if they finally learned how to make a desktop (the server works fine but I want a desktop okay?), and every year I end up giving up and staying with Windows 7 (Windows 10 is bizarrely following the same path of the linux desktop, so I I'll stick with the Windows 7 until further notice).
P.S: Sometimes I almost feel like I've been able to leave my Linux desktop as I would like (using KDE in Linux Mint for example), but then something always breaks down in a disastrous way because of some update or something that should be trivial like installing a new version of GIMP.
No no, the mechanical protection I have described is of another type. There are several examples I can give but let's get one of the simple ones: Imagine some system where if the valve A is open then the valve B needs to be closed and vice versa, the valves MUST not open at the same time. in a normal situation you have a PLC deciding when to open and close the valves, but the valves contain a mechanical limiter such that when valve A opens the mechanism locks and prevents opening of valve B (and vice versa), then even if the PLC orders the two valves to open only one will be able to open because of mechanical blocking (this also exists for electric keys)
Well... You and I would not put cheap servos and non-physical protections on an equipment that weighs several tons and costs easily over a million dollars, right? I know that many people do stupid things when designing safeguards on equipment but these are the incompetent engineers from my example
it was not a fantasy world. I worked in a power plant and in this plant you do things right as I described or really, really bad things happen. And to be honest if the situations you described could not be avoided with failsafes then it means that the engineer who designed that failsafes did not know what he was doing, which then falls in the case of the "incompetent engineer" I have described.
I have followed in person with great interest the operation of a power plant where PLCs are used to command heavy equipment. All the equipment had fail-safes in case the PLCs tried to send invalid or potentially destructive commands so the worst that a "Hollywood superhacker" could do would be to shut down the plant (without damage), and even that I believe would not work because the operators in place also had secondary independent controls in case the main (the PLCs) had problems.
I see you did not understand my point, right? It's okay, I understand that not everyone is aware of how heavy power equipment works in real life.
The idea is that in a system that has a minimum of good sense at the time of design, you have layers of protection of different kinds that prevent a potentially catastrophic command from being executed, and you also design knowing that your control system may have problems and may try to execute exactly these commands that can be catastrophic. Then you put protections on the system that do not depend on each other and that can not be affected all at the same time, in particular when you put an electronic control on something you also have to put mechanical limits on what the electronics can do if they lose control, so that if the electronic control fails (or is deliberately sabotaged) it can not damage the equipment.
Short version: Equipment which can "explode" because of ridiculous "superhackers" only happens in Hollywood or when you have a completely incompetent engineer, and I seriously doubt you're going to entrust a multi-thousand dollar rig to an incompetent engineer.
Yep, FUD. Any half-engineer puts electrical and mechanical limits to prevent multi-million dollar equipment to do things that they should not, even when the electronics (the computer) try to give orders to do so. This is the fault of those ridiculous hollywood movies that try to pass the retarded idea that a scriptkiddie with a computer can control anything.
The new guys (the new entrepreneurs) are too stupid to think about where consumers come from. They think that consumers emerge from the "vacuum" and that they are inexhaustible.
I would instead fire the CEO. Think how much burguer flippers I can hire with the CEO salary?
Windows 10 is a nice kernel but with an GUI made by preschool children on top of it... Maybe I change my mind and switch to it when the interface be made by real professionals, until then I'll continue with Windows 7.
My CPU is a I7 4930K and it have the PCID (so says the HWiNFO64 and AIDA). But I think I will pass this "fix" if in the background his truly goal is to force me to buy a new desktop and force the use of Windows 10.
The problem is that I doubt very much that the FBI/CIA/NSA will someday use this skill for any lawful reason, it is much, much more likely that it will use this ability to steal my industrial secrets (and sell them to some north-american firm) and spying on other nations.